Religious Discussions

And you clearly didn't 't bother to see Dr. Amit Gowsami's clip that I'd posted earlier on. If you say you know more than a physicist who spent his whole life researching this field and his text books are followed in Universities, then I rest my case right here.

There are countless physicists who disagree with him, too. That isn't how this works. Arguments from authority are lame, and even more so when higher, more well respected authorities contradict you.

Peter Duesberg was a highly respected molecular biologist, yet he is also an AIDS denialist.

No, he wasn't brain dead for seven days. What utter boll**ks. It isn't possible to be brain dead and come back to life, let alone after a week.

Could you quote where he says that he was brain dead? He was in a coma, but his brain was not dead.

And again, who cares about his chances of survival? That has no relevance to the NDE.

He had no brain activity because this disease had wiped out ALL his memories which caused him deep coma state. When there are no activities in the brain, it is thought to be dead. And If he were to survive, he would have needed to start on a clean slate, like a new born baby but he didn't. When he came back, the only thing he remembered was the experience he had in this coma state. All other memories came back later. In fact, there are now many cases, where after all these near death experience patients, were able to beat all the odds like stage 4 cancer and not only that, the cancer, tumors all disappeared within literally days. Medical science has yet to give any explanation. These are all facts.

There are countless physicists who disagree with him, too. That isn't how this works. Arguments from authority are lame, and even more so when higher, more well respected authorities contradict you.

Peter Duesberg was a highly respected molecular biologist, yet he is also an AIDS denialist.

My point? People can be wrong, no matter how well trained they are.

'Can be' is the key word which means there's a very good chance he can be right too. And if you listen to him, you will see, he's trying to make a very good point in each case. He was a materialist for a long time after all but his curiosity and his ongoing research has helped him to come to this conclusion. There are other physicists who support his work. He's not alone in this. Besides, he's already verified some of this work.

Even if chance was part of the process, what control do you have over chance? You are not in control of randomness. Therefore, you still don't have free will.

Alright - obviously I have no control over chance - it still doesn't follow that my actions are constrained in a deterministic fashion, thare will always be several, perhaps many actions, I might take as a result of a set of circumstances, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can prove that there is only one possible outcome from the simplest scenario. Therefore determinism is a false proposition.

He had no brain activity because this disease had wiped out ALL his memories which caused him deep coma state. When there are no activities in the brain, it is thought to be dead. And If he were to survive, he would have needed to start on a clean slate, like a new born baby but he didn't. When he came back, the only thing he remembered was the experience he had in this coma state. All other memories came back later. In fact, there are now many cases, where after all these near death experience patients, were able to beat all the odds like stage 4 cancer and not only that, the cancer, tumors all disappeared within literally days. Medical science has yet to give any explanation. These are all facts.

Again, he was not brain dead. And his memory was not wiped clean, given that they came back to him later.

So now you're saying there's a connection between NDEs and the patient's cancer going into remission?

'Can be' is the key word which means there's a very good chance he can be right too. And if you listen to him, you will see, he's trying to make a very good point in each case. He was a materialist for a long time after all but his curiosity and his ongoing research has helped him to come to this conclusion. There are other physicists who support his work. He's not alone in this. Besides, he's already verified some of this work.

It doesn't mean there is a very good chance that he's right, particularly when he is in the minority.

Alright - obviously I have no control over chance - it still doesn't follow that my actions are constrained in a deterministic fashion, thare will always be several, perhaps many actions, I might take as a result of a set of circumstances, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can prove that there is only one possible outcome from the simplest scenario. Therefore determinism is a false proposition.

Whether there is one possible outcome is irrelevant. You still have no control. There isn't a single thing you can do that would be incompatible with determinism.

If you have no control, you have no free will. You have to prove that your will takes control at some point in the chain of events that lead to any given decision.